trust

How to Evaluate Projects Without Getting Caught in the Hype Trap
I’m no longer swayed by big stories, grand narratives, or futuristic dreams.
I’m more interested in how I make decisions.
I recently realized an uncomfortable truth about myself.
When I write a project review, it often becomes a list of pros and cons.
The reader is satisfied, and I feel satisfied.
But when it comes time to actually make a decision or take action,
that confidence is no longer useful.
What I need at that moment is not excitement
but a way to keep myself from making emotional decisions.
That’s why I changed my approach.
Now I don’t ask
“What is this project good at?”
Instead, I ask this question first:
“What would make me reject it immediately?”
I have three veto rules.
If a project meets even one of these,
I immediately stop paying attention to it.
Veto #1: Projects that just make noise
Some projects seem very impressive in their talk.
Big words, beautiful slogans, and vague concepts everywhere.
But when you ask them:
How does it actually work?
What will happen in difficult or unusual situations?
Who will be responsible if something goes wrong?
The answer is: “Community consensus”,
“Future updates”,
“Long-term vision”.
I immediately blacklist such projects.
I have suffered from them before.
I now look specifically at
whether a project is willing to face the tough questions.
Projects that talk about conflict, scrutiny, and accountability are very different from projects that just shout slogans.
Writing the problem into the system is a much more serious approach than just shouting.

Veto No. 2: Projects that are easy to change
This is my biggest concern in the infrastructure sector.
If Project A is removed today
and Project B is installed tomorrow
and the business doesn’t make a significant difference,
then the long-term value of such a project is weakened.
No matter how powerful it is,
it eventually gets caught in a price war,
where the profit is reduced to zero.
That’s why I ask a very simple question:
If someone doesn’t use you tomorrow,
will it really hurt?
The question is not one of technology,
but one of economic and practical dependence.
I consider more important those projects
that are not just a function,
but provide a way to define problems,
define responsibility,
and provide a path to accountability.
Such value is rarely appreciated.
It is often realized
when something goes wrong.
Of course, this is proven over time.
Design shows the direction,
but the real decision is made by the business.
Veto number 3: Projects that only work in a bull market
This point is the most sensitive for me at the moment.
Some projects seem right in every way
when the market is hot:
transactions increase
stories are created
capital comes in
but as soon as the market cools down,
the demand for them immediately disappears.
Such projects may be fast in the short term,
but I cannot consider them as a long-term foundation.
I prefer projects
that are not based on emotions
but on real and permanent needs.
When blockchain connects to real payments,
settlement and business,
the need for verifiable and accountable systems
is free from market fluctuations.
Indeed, the more chaos there is,
the more clarity becomes important.
Such projects are based on reality rather than hype.A cautious way to make decisions
These three veto rulesdon’t help me get excited,but rather protect me from mistakes.
I no longer get influenced by projects
that just “look right”.
I consider projects more important
that can give a clear account of the problem when it arises.
I have seen situations where:
The problem arose suddenly
There was no explanation
No one to take responsibility
And in the end I had to bear the loss myself.
That experiencechanged the way I make decisions.
Now, instead of looking for trust,
I deliberately look for reasons to reject.
If a project can withstand this pressure,
only then does it deserve to be on my watch list.
Currently,
this is the most realistic risk control
I know of. Veto number 2: Projects that are easy to change
This is my biggest concern in the infrastructure sector
If Project A is removed today and Project B is installed tomorrow, the long-term value of such a project is weakened. No matter how powerful it is, it will eventually be caught in a price war, where the profit is negligible. So I ask a very simple question: If someone doesn't use you tomorrow, will it really hurt? This is not a question of technology, but of economic and practical dependence. I consider projects more important that provide not just a function, but a way to define problems, define responsibility, and provide a path to accountability. Such value is rarely appreciated. Often, it is realized when something goes wrong. Of course, this is proven over time. Design shows direction, but the real decision is made by the business. Veto number 3: Projects that only work in bull markets This point is the most sensitive for me at the moment.
Some projects seem to be right on target
when the market is hot:
transactions increase
stories are created
capital comes in
but as soon as the market cools down,
the demand for them immediately disappears.
Such projects may be fast in the short term,
but I cannot consider them as a long-term basis.
I prefer projects
that are not based on emotions
but on real and permanent needs.
When blockchain connects to real payments,
settlement and business,
the need for verifiable and accountable systems
is free from market fluctuations.
In fact, the more chaos,
the more clarity becomes important.
Such projects
are based on reality rather than hype.
A cautious approach to decision-making
These three veto principles
don’t help me get excited,
but rather protect me from mistakes.
I am no longer impressed by projects that just “look right”.
I consider projects that can be more important
to give a clear account of the problem when it arises.
I have seen situations where:
The problem arose suddenly
There was no explanation
No one to take responsibility
And in the end I had to bear the loss myself.
That experience
changed the way I make decisions.
Now, instead of looking for trust,
I deliberately look for reasons to reject.
Only if a project can withstand this pressure
does it deserve to be on my watch list.
Currently, this is the most realistic risk control I know of.
#BİNANCE
#Trust
#StrategyBTCPurchase
$BTC
$SOL
$BNB